hey pat,
You wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Reoccuring words in this forum are 'sq', 'DQ' and 'SOM'. There is a
>tendency here to put forward some argument, and then classify it as
>belonging to one of these categories, which then is followed simply by a
>'.': no further explanation needed.
>I read here in some posts that things can be real independently of our
>consciousness. That makes me wondering about what SOM means.
>The MoQ is not a SOM philosophy. But is it? If biological and inorganic
>patterns are real but not conscious, should we not say that these
>patterns are objectively real; since they can exist by themselves,
>without a consciousness to shine upon them needed? Instead of two words
>"subject-object" we have five
>"inorganic-organic-biological-social-intellectual" (I believe these are
>the levels: I never was good in them)... but no essential difference
>between these two perspective; it lies only in the jargon that's being
>used.
>
>Here is a question then: Define in a few sentences what YOU mean by
>subject-object-metaphysics.
Elliot:
In a hasty reply, one of many that will pour in im sure, i have this to say:
Subject object metaphysics proclaims that there are two divided and
non-unifiable things in the world, subjects, or Minds, and objects (not self
things which include Body). Some have tried to unite them by building a
heirarchy which places one as the creator of the other. I see all these
atempts as complete failures.
What makes the MoQ different is that it recognizes Quality as the originator
of both of these things. Matter is not created by me (an I) nor am I merely
a pile of matter. All these things spring from the One Mind (to use
buddhist terminology) which is neiter out there nor in here, a place (to use
the word loosely) before the out there/in here distinction is made.
Of course, using the english language, with its subjects and objects, we
must use basic SOM ideas to talk about that which is not SOM, that which is
before SOM. but it is said over and over, do not confuse the map for the
terrain, do not confuse the subjects and objects of the sentances with the
nature of Quality.
To paraphrase Wonhyo (who was probably paraphrasing many other buddhists
whom i havent read): the MoQ (ok, he didnt say MoQ) is like a finger
pointing at the moon. It is like someone who looks closer and closer still
at my finger yelling "that is not the moon!", and in this fashion the more
refined your critiques become, the further from the principal you are drawn.
and, you have said "If biological and inorganic patterns are real but not
conscious" but you miss a very important point. Biological and inorganic
patterns ARE consious (sentient, whatever)! they respond to Quality, they
are aware of their environment. It is the consiousness of Quarks which
imparts to us our higher pattern of consiousness, it is the consiousness of
rocks which is a microcosom of my own consiousness, and it is in
consiousness that we share, where subjects and objects die, where the sea of
the One Mind rests, undisturbed. Pirsig uses Descartes' old trick of making
the universe a machine inorder to state rules about it, and talk about it,
but Pirsig admits its only a trick.
oh, it is the moon,
Elliot
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:20 BST